A Poverty of Words

<p>There are a few things that would go a long way. Stopping teen/unwed pregnancy, stop minimizing the importance of fathers in a child’s life, and graduate high school. Those 3 things would go a long way to having a more stable life for many young kids. Let’s stop giving these men a pass - I had an employee paying child support to 7 different women for 9 different children. He didn’t even know their information when I had to get the garnishment set up. Once that hit he was long gone from my company without a word to us.</p>

<p>I hire young women. MOST of these young women have kids by multiple fathers, are unwed and don’t even contemplate the school, then job, then marriage then baby model. An employee just told me she’s pregnant with #3, unmarried and unplanned. All I think is these kids don’t stand a chance. </p>

<p>Marriage stabilizes families. The government can’t be a husband/parent. It’s a support system but I really wish the under 30 crowd didn’t believe that marriage was no longer important. </p>

<p>A teacher and books just can’t overcome some of these social situations.</p>

<p>DartDad, to quote type [8quote] before the material, and [8/quote] after it. Without the 8s, which I put in to make it visible. :)</p>

<p>This illustrates some of the challenges poor people face.
[This</a> Is Why Poor People’s Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense | Linda Tirado](<a href=“This Is Why Poor People's Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense | HuffPost Latest News”>This Is Why Poor People's Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense | HuffPost Latest News)</p>

<p>And possibly why they are poor.
[the fall of unions mirrors fall of middle class](<a href=“Middle-Class Decline Mirrors The Fall Of Unions In One Chart | HuffPost Impact”>http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3948543&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

<p>Emeraldkity, I have problems with both of those articles. I grew up in a low income family that just managed to cover the necessities and over time could cover a little more. Around us, people at our income level and higher, some a lot higher, with more resources from family, friends, community lived a lower standard of living. The reason we did not was because my parents, especially my mother literally watched every single penny. We did not eat out. We did not drive around. No sodas, no candy, nothing extra unless it was a gift or freebie. They very rarely spent anything they did not have to. Each meal was so carefully planned. Not a roll or serving extra. My mother measured it out to the pea, and I am not exaggerating. Very little garbage from our house. I am humbled by their money management, and they did have their financial catastrophes, that they paid off, little by little. My brother was a complicated birth and they had no health insurance, for example. It took ten years for them to pay that off. </p>

<p>As for the unions, when they start getting more money than the recipients can get on the market, it’s looking for trouble. My old union city went bust, when the business moved elsewhere. So many people that thought they were worth so much a year on the work market found out that was not the case at all. It was an artificial inflation of their wages due to the union. Once that was removed, that was it for that earning rate.</p>

<p>There is absolutely no sense made by the woman in the first article beginning with getting pregnant whilst living in a weekly motel. A very bad choice. But, the bad choices started before she got to the motel. Those are not mentioned in her sob story. Sorry, no sympathy here.</p>

<p>It’s hard to cook broccoli and smoking makes me feel better. Good grief.</p>

<p>Broccoli is healthy eaten raw, Smoking can be very expensive.</p>

<p>Smoking can be very expensive unless you buy them on the black market/ at a reservation.
It does kill hunger though.</p>

<p>Minority? White? Oh my. I think any young, poor, poorly educated, “stuck” mother qualifies for this scenario and I’ve certainly seen it. On the contrary, I saw a well dressed professional looking black lady and her two children in the grocery store today and they were clearly happy, talking, interacting, discussing what they were shopping for. I’m sort of shocked to read this here.</p>

<p>^ This. Race is irrelevant. It’s irrelevant more than people realize but they LOVE to bring it up.</p>

<p>In some places, socioeconomic status and race are highly correlated. In other places, they aren’t. </p>

<p>It seems clear from the discussion on this thread that the kinds of problems we’re talking about have more to do with socioeconomic status than race. But in some parts of the country, you would have a hard time making the distinction.</p>

<p>I haven’t read the whole thread but I thought it was about talking to toddlers. Not too sure what that has to do with race or class.</p>

<p>[8quote]I haven’t read the whole thread but I thought it was about talking to toddlers. Not too sure what that has to do with race or class.[8quote]</p>

<p>The threads original purpose was to shed light on the outcome of a child not exposed to a wide range of spoken words before age 4. Economic disparities, family dynamics and how a parent chooses to spend time with a child can have long lasting effects relative to a child’s literacy level before kindergarten</p>

<p>@Consolation- I tried :)</p>

<p>Complex and important topic. There are many studies showing that the number of words spoken to children correspond to their vocabularies (e.g, Hart and Risley; research at Stanford by Anne Fernald, etc). But, the dynamics are more complicated than that… there are also individual differences in children’s capacity to attend to words and to learn language as well as their rate of vocabulary development (expressive and receptive). </p>

<p>Cultural differences may also exist as to the ways in which children are expected to learn (Barbara Rogoff’s research on Mayan culture and the expectation that children watch and learn from adults (e.g., imitative, attentive learning versus verbally interactive)). There are cultures where the conversations with children take place when children are playing with groups of children of different ages as well as through their exposure to adults in varying roles in their lives (neighbors, godparents, aunts, uncles, grandparents,etc), in addition to or instead of primarily through interaction with their parents. However, in the U.S., we have less of a collective approach to child rearing and many families with children are relatively isolated when one considers how many people through the course of a day or week a child in regular face-to-face contact with a given family. So, here, how much an individual parent talks and responds to an individual child may well be key. And, research studies that divvy up the parents by words spoken, do see this; however, more educated parents do tend to talk to their children more in general, given that school teaches us to use our verbal reasoning. </p>

<p>Further, work and school in the 21st century are heavily skewed toward verbal learning, and children who start school 2 years behind the norm in their vocabulary and language understanding will have a hard time catching up. Children’s vocabularies in kindergarten correlate to their ease in learning to read as well as to their achievement in later grades. If we know that certain populations are at risk for this type of early delay, do we prefer to intervene early or decry high-school drop out rates when late remediation has not worked? </p>

<p>I also grew up in my early years in poverty, but my parents were both talkers and readers… Another key element to children’s development relates to the effects of unbuffered,toxic stress in childhood, affecting everything from emotional regulation to attention to asthma rates to proximal and distal health effects. Obviously, impaired attention can also affect language learning. Parents under extreme stress may also be less likely to chat about the world around them and delimit communications to commands. Some of the research in this area posits that it is the extra words that soften and add the love, as well as present different concepts to children, but that there are a certain number of commands that are almost universally used in managing lifee with young children. “Sit down.” Versus, “Sit down. It isn’t safe to stand on the shopping cart. Why don’t we sit your teddy down next to you?” So, what can we all do to buffer the stress experienced by young and expecting families and to help them provide more emotional and language nurturing going forward?</p>

<p>My parents were very quiet people not given to lengthy discussions about anything. In their country, children weren’t doted upon and education was for the very wealthy. I was not constantly “engaged” by them growing up and bookmobiles at school came and went, we could never afford them. No one was there to drive me to the library, so I was
Literally a latchkey kid that watched a lot of TV. Yet, by the third grade, I had learned English and was an avid reader. And eventually placed in an advanced learning program and honors programs in high school. </p>

<p>When My kids were toddlers, I stayed home with them and engaged them from sunup to sundown, books, mommy and me programs, you name it, we lived at the library, and we modeled reading habits. Yet our kids have been terribly average students all their lives, struggling now to keep up with their mates in college. Sometimes I think race and poverty matter less than a kid’s own instinctual drive.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think the idea is that given two kids with the same instinctual makeup, the one with more verbal engagement in the early years of life is likely to do better in school and therefore have better prospects for employment and life in general.</p>

<p>My kids probably got a lot of verbal interaction when they were young because I was a SAHM at the time, and I talk a lot (too much, in many people’s opinion). One of my kids turned out to have a great deal of intellectual curiosity, but the other didn’t. One became a top student, while the other had a mediocre educational record. And in case you were wondering, the one who was a top student was NOT the one with the strong intellectual curiosity.</p>

<p>My son and daughter are the people they are, and probably nothing could have changed them dramatically. But I suspect that without the verbal interaction during the early years, things would not have gone as well as they did. I also suspect that they would not have done as well as they did if they had not come from a family where education was always given a high priority – another factor that I think is important. Even the “mediocre” student now has a master’s degree.</p>

<p>The assumption seems to be that race and poverty somehow correlate with verbal engagement. That may be statistically true, although I’m not sure how you would actually measure how much a mom talks to her babies. But there is no real reason why a young mom of any race or any income level cannot be verbally engaged with her child. It costs nothing.</p>

<p>Actually, I don’t see anyone here assuming that race is an issue, including the OP, who, it turns out, was quoting someone else. And who stated that he is a person of color himself.</p>

<p>DartDad, you need to remove the 8. And include the backslash in the close quote instruction. Once more unto the breach! :)</p>

<p>I think poverty CAN correlate, but it depends. A person can become poor because of circumstances, such as immigration, illness, bankruptcy, etc. Or a person can be part of a multi-generational pattern of poverty and everything that goes with being in the underclass. The latter is the sort of person who is perhaps more likely to raise children with inadequate intellectual or verbal stimulation, because THEY were raised without it and don’t really know what it is. They aren’t magically “fixed” when they turn 16 and have their own babies. At least that is what my friends who served multiple generations of the largely rural poor have told me.</p>

<p>Well, of course. But if the point is a the child of an uneducated 16-year old welfare mom has less advantages than Donald Trump’s kids how is that news?</p>

<p>How studies measure how much parents talk to their kids? One of the seminal studies (Hart and Risley) followed children over a period of years, during which time they did periodic home visits that were audiotaped. Every word was transcribed.The transcriptions served as the data which was coded. Other studies include voice recordings over longer periods of time and even a word counter, the presence of which, on its own increases speech towards children <a href=“The Power of Talking to Your Baby - The New York Times”>The Power of Talking to Your Baby - The New York Times; .</p>

<p>Responsive communication (gestural, affective, and verbal) toward young children may interact with their own individual differences, but likely will not erase them. So, a child with a severe, congenital condition that affects either language understanding or speech development will not have that condition erased because the parents respond and speak to him or her. But parents who are watching and responding to a child will develop a more nuanced understanding of that child’s individuality that will likely also help the child develop communication skills, though supportive therapies may also be necessary. One might also posit that this type of responsiveness is beneficial to the child, regardless of how if impacts language skills… A child prone to be very talkative may turn out to be so, as long as some threshold of verbal input and interaction is received. However, a less talkative child who is spoken to and read might still have have a stronger vocabulary than even a chatty child from a background with less access to vocabulary. We are sometimes confusing sociability with vocabulary knowledge, whether receptive or expressive.</p>

<p>One might also remember that these are highly significant and meaningful trends, but there are always, always outliers. And the overall, overarching trends do not bring in the individual differences in children’s skills, interests, and development. None of this should serve to disrespect parents who are raising children under difficult odds with little support, as many parents in poverty are doing and as other parents with more economic resources may also be doing. And Flossy’s point that talking more to one’s child costs nothing is also critical. It may cost money to teach parents some different ways to talk to their children, but overall, if for many parents the barrier is not knowing, these would be relatively inexpensive and cost-effective interventions during the first year or two of life when parents are extremely receptive in general.</p>